These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Remove AFK cloaking

First post
Author
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#101 - 2012-10-25 08:01:58 UTC
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
First explain how introducing a new ship with a specialized module that has the ability to, with skill, have a chance to temporarily disable all cloaks will 'destroy' WH space.

Considering its a specialized ship, would its presence not alert the cov-op pilot to the potential danger? Perhaps use a fuel cost or charges, perhaps a huge cool down or massive cap usage to 'fire' the disruptor so as to not make it spammable.

AFK in POS - Can Seige said POS, with a greater chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system.
AFK in Station - granted, you cannot Pod individual, however an alliance can take over the station and remove his ability to redock with a greter chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system.

LOL frail and battered psyche, that's cute. Anyway as I previously stated I play this game and I seek to improve it.
Likewise I haven't demanded anything, only suggested something that in fact existed and continues to exist in reality, as allowing an enemies submarine free reign in your waters without any ability to hunt for it is very dangerous (see WWII, battle for the atlantic)

Perhaps the crux of this (obviously highly emotionally charged) discussion is the need to differentiate between types of cloak. One for the Spy, and one for the Ambusher?

The spy could continue to gather information without risk, only his time and effort.

The ambusher could be revealed by the Disruptor, but has a ship-type that is more capable in combat than the spy.


Because as I've already said, the inability to know if there are cloaked ships in wormhole space is a deliberate design. Adding a ship that will, with a few clicks, tell you if/how many cloaked ships are in the wormhole defeats the god damn point. You may not be too familiar with wormhole mechanics or the typical styles of gameplay, but take it from people who've spent years doing it: Introducing a ship or mechanic that'll not only tell you cloaked ships are there but let you find them is horrific, and destroys what makes wormhole space unique and interesting. You claim it's presence would alert the cov-ops pilot... but what relevance does that have? Great, they know that the enemy knows they are present (despite wormhole space being specifically designed to prevent that)... now what? The jig is up, already. Good job ruining an entire area of space with your peabrained idea.

As for sieging a pos or taking over an outpost... they both take a lot of effort and provide the person sitting in them ample time and opportunity to get out safely, additionally sieging a pos or taking over an outpost doesn't undermine core mechanics of 0.0 space.

You want to improve the game, and I appreciate the good intentions, but take it from someone who actually knows: Your suggestion would make the game worse in many ways.
Devon Krah'tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2012-10-25 11:57:42 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
First explain how introducing a new ship with a specialized module that has the ability to, with skill, have a chance to temporarily disable all cloaks will 'destroy' WH space.

Considering its a specialized ship, would its presence not alert the cov-op pilot to the potential danger? Perhaps use a fuel cost or charges, perhaps a huge cool down or massive cap usage to 'fire' the disruptor so as to not make it spammable.

AFK in POS - Can Seige said POS, with a greater chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system.
AFK in Station - granted, you cannot Pod individual, however an alliance can take over the station and remove his ability to redock with a greter chance of success than moving within 2000m of the cloaker in system.

LOL frail and battered psyche, that's cute. Anyway as I previously stated I play this game and I seek to improve it.
Likewise I haven't demanded anything, only suggested something that in fact existed and continues to exist in reality, as allowing an enemies submarine free reign in your waters without any ability to hunt for it is very dangerous (see WWII, battle for the atlantic)

Perhaps the crux of this (obviously highly emotionally charged) discussion is the need to differentiate between types of cloak. One for the Spy, and one for the Ambusher?

The spy could continue to gather information without risk, only his time and effort.

The ambusher could be revealed by the Disruptor, but has a ship-type that is more capable in combat than the spy.


Because as I've already said, the inability to know if there are cloaked ships in wormhole space is a deliberate design. Adding a ship that will, with a few clicks, tell you if/how many cloaked ships are in the wormhole defeats the god damn point. You may not be too familiar with wormhole mechanics or the typical styles of gameplay, but take it from people who've spent years doing it: Introducing a ship or mechanic that'll not only tell you cloaked ships are there but let you find them is horrific, and destroys what makes wormhole space unique and interesting. You claim it's presence would alert the cov-ops pilot... but what relevance does that have? Great, they know that the enemy knows they are present (despite wormhole space being specifically designed to prevent that)... now what? The jig is up, already. Good job ruining an entire area of space with your peabrained idea.

As for sieging a pos or taking over an outpost... they both take a lot of effort and provide the person sitting in them ample time and opportunity to get out safely, additionally sieging a pos or taking over an outpost doesn't undermine core mechanics of 0.0 space.

You want to improve the game, and I appreciate the good intentions, but take it from someone who actually knows: Your suggestion would make the game worse in many ways.



mmm clever use of the word 'peabrained' I like what you did there. And although such infallible logic has rocked me back to my heels, I will nevertheless attempt a rebuttal

The premise of your entire argument is thus : it will ruin WSpace, as this area of the game is designed around the concept of stealth and cloaking. Fine, so WSpace eminations alter/eliminate using a disruptor, which is btw mounted on your ship, not a probe you launch. Now WSpace is maintained as it is and working as intended. You can breathe a sigh of relieif.

I would ask you now then why A) Cloaks should show up in Local. Why the creation of a second type of cloak, specifically fit for combat cov ops ships (versus purely information gathering ones) wouldn't eleviate that problem. And how these two changes wouldn't in fact go hand in hand with a disruptor module, mounted on a specialized hull that could detect/disrupt the Ambusher Cloak (for combat ships)

Yes seiging a POS or a Station are hard. Finding a Cloaking and flying within 2000m of him in a solar system are a c%$t hair short of impossible.

If I was so inclined, I could create 1000 subscriptions, train them to fly a covops and flood nullsec with AFK cloakers.
Imagine the tears.

Is this a mechanic your willing to defend without comprimise?
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#103 - 2012-10-25 20:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
The problem with the disruptor ship is that it does something than no other ship (or ship based module) in EVE can do: apply an effect across a whole system.

This is a bit OP (about as much as the old AOE DD imo) and if you limit it in any way so that it is not OP, you make it only useful against active cloakers and hence does nothing to "counter" afk cloakers.


Edit2: read back a bit more carefully, and this was not entirely what was suggested. I apologize for derping and you may return to your semi-debate.


Edit: and anyone who gives tears over 1 potentially afk guy is a fool. There are plenty of options to deal with invaders, and there are many systems that do not have afk cloakers (or anyone for that matter).
Devon Krah'tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#104 - 2012-10-25 22:13:46 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
The problem with the disruptor ship is that it does something than no other ship (or ship based module) in EVE can do: apply an effect across a whole system.

This is a bit OP (about as much as the old AOE DD imo) and if you limit it in any way so that it is not OP, you make it only useful against active cloakers and hence does nothing to "counter" afk cloakers.


Edit2: read back a bit more carefully, and this was not entirely what was suggested. I apologize for derping and you may return to your semi-debate.


Edit: and anyone who gives tears over 1 potentially afk guy is a fool. There are plenty of options to deal with invaders, and there are many systems that do not have afk cloakers (or anyone for that matter).



I see your point and raise you 1 off grid boosting ship.

PS never stated Cloak disruptor had to have a system wide range, probably in the AUs though.

Again, allow me suggest another type of cloak (Ambusher) that can be fitted by combat ships that can be countered with disruptor. Cov-Ops (intelligence gathering) ships can retain the old (Spy) type cloak and remain utterly undetectable.

Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#105 - 2012-10-26 01:09:32 UTC
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
The problem with the disruptor ship is that it does something than no other ship (or ship based module) in EVE can do: apply an effect across a whole system.

This is a bit OP (about as much as the old AOE DD imo) and if you limit it in any way so that it is not OP, you make it only useful against active cloakers and hence does nothing to "counter" afk cloakers.


Edit2: read back a bit more carefully, and this was not entirely what was suggested. I apologize for derping and you may return to your semi-debate.


Edit: and anyone who gives tears over 1 potentially afk guy is a fool. There are plenty of options to deal with invaders, and there are many systems that do not have afk cloakers (or anyone for that matter).



I see your point and raise you 1 off grid boosting ship.

PS never stated Cloak disruptor had to have a system wide range, probably in the AUs though.

Again, allow me suggest another type of cloak (Ambusher) that can be fitted by combat ships that can be countered with disruptor. Cov-Ops (intelligence gathering) ships can retain the old (Spy) type cloak and remain utterly undetectable.


Note: I did edit after I realized I misunderstood. Also I forgot about offgrid boosting... which I have been against for quite a while.

Your two cloak idea would not have any effect whatsoever on afk cloaking (because an afk cloaker of the kind people worry most about is not a combat ship, rather a covert ops with cyno).

There is simply no idea (that modifies cloaking mechanics or cloaks) that would do anything to afk cloakers without making active cloak activities much more difficult or tedious than they already are. Yet. I've been thinking for a long while on this. If anyone comes up with one, I might even buy them a PLEX. Maybe. Not committing to that though.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#106 - 2012-10-26 11:25:43 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Because as I've already said, the inability to know if there are cloaked ships in wormhole space is a deliberate design. Adding a ship that will, with a few clicks, tell you if/how many cloaked ships are in the wormhole defeats the god damn point. You may not be too familiar with wormhole mechanics or the typical styles of gameplay, but take it from people who've spent years doing it: Introducing a ship or mechanic that'll not only tell you cloaked ships are there but let you find them is horrific, and destroys what makes wormhole space unique and interesting. You claim it's presence would alert the cov-ops pilot... but what relevance does that have? Great, they know that the enemy knows they are present (despite wormhole space being specifically designed to prevent that)... now what? The jig is up, already. Good job ruining an entire area of space with your peabrained idea.

As for sieging a pos or taking over an outpost... they both take a lot of effort and provide the person sitting in them ample time and opportunity to get out safely, additionally sieging a pos or taking over an outpost doesn't undermine core mechanics of 0.0 space.

You want to improve the game, and I appreciate the good intentions, but take it from someone who actually knows: Your suggestion would make the game worse in many ways.



mmm clever use of the word 'peabrained' I like what you did there. And although such infallible logic has rocked me back to my heels, I will nevertheless attempt a rebuttal

The premise of your entire argument is thus : it will ruin WSpace, as this area of the game is designed around the concept of stealth and cloaking. Fine, so WSpace eminations alter/eliminate using a disruptor, which is btw mounted on your ship, not a probe you launch. Now WSpace is maintained as it is and working as intended. You can breathe a sigh of relieif.

I would ask you now then why A) Cloaks should show up in Local. Why the creation of a second type of cloak, specifically fit for combat cov ops ships (versus purely information gathering ones) wouldn't eleviate that problem. And how these two changes wouldn't in fact go hand in hand with a disruptor module, mounted on a specialized hull that could detect/disrupt the Ambusher Cloak (for combat ships)

Yes seiging a POS or a Station are hard. Finding a Cloaking and flying within 2000m of him in a solar system are a c%$t hair short of impossible.

If I was so inclined, I could create 1000 subscriptions, train them to fly a covops and flood nullsec with AFK cloakers.
Imagine the tears.

Is this a mechanic your willing to defend without comprimise?


Yes, I am. I'll get to why in a moment.

First, I am glad you appreciate how destructive such a ship (or other similar suggestions) would be to wormhole mechanics, and of course disallowing the use of such a ship (or similar mechanic) in wormhole space would of course preserve the glorious, superior mechanics of wormhole space. It'd feel a bit clunky to say "ah! But ... strange system effect! Just so happens you can't use that ship now!", but it'd at least preserve the sanctity of wormholes.

However, I still entirely disagree with such a ship because there are, again, legitimate activities and playstyles in nullsec space which would be massively hindered. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but long term reconnaissance missions, whether it's observing an enemy fleet, or waiting in a strategic location to provide jump/warp in points, etc rely on the ability to sit cloaked in one location for extended periods of time. I feel that being able to locate these brave agents is detrimental to the game, as it helps entrench residents/defenders by making even simple acts of observing them or getting in position much more difficult. There are further arguments in favour of cloaking, such as countering the stupid, instant and infallible local tool by introducing doubt - are you there, or are you afk? Some kind of mechanic to detect stationary cloaked ships would remove this doubt, providing people with even more security and intel than they already have, and remove the one tiny thing players can do to help counter the overpowered local tool. No to that, I say.

And above all else, I don't understand why you feel you should have the right to find and kill afk players in your system anyway. You already have every advantage, yet you are so mad that they simply have the ability to sit in your system doing nothing? Pah.

As for you creating an army of afk alts, yes, I fully support that. I will defend that without question or compromise. As they're all afk and incapable of doing anything, there is no problem. It may scare some local bears to see "twonk1, twonk2, twonk3..." etc in local, and they may think theres a big fleet out to get them but the ability to employ such forms psychological warfare and meta-gaming are what elevate EVE Online above the wow-level dreck that MMO game space is dominated by.
Devon Krah'tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#107 - 2012-10-26 16:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Devon Krah'tor
TheGunslinger42 wrote:



However, I still entirely disagree with such a ship because there are, again, legitimate activities and playstyles in nullsec space which would be massively hindered. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but long term reconnaissance missions, whether it's observing an enemy fleet, or waiting in a strategic location to provide jump/warp in points, etc rely on the ability to sit cloaked in one location for extended periods of time. I feel that being able to locate these brave agents is detrimental to the game, as it helps entrench residents/defenders by making even simple acts of observing them or getting in position much more difficult. There are further arguments in favour of cloaking, such as countering the stupid, instant and infallible local tool by introducing doubt - are you there, or are you afk? Some kind of mechanic to detect stationary cloaked ships would remove this doubt, providing people with even more security and intel than they already have, and remove the one tiny thing players can do to help counter the overpowered local tool. No to that, I say.

And above all else, I don't understand why you feel you should have the right to find and kill afk players in your system anyway. You already have every advantage, yet you are so mad that they simply have the ability to sit in your system doing nothing? Pah.

As for you creating an army of afk alts, yes, I fully support that. I will defend that without question or compromise. As they're all afk and incapable of doing anything, there is no problem. It may scare some local bears to see "twonk1, twonk2, twonk3..." etc in local, and they may think theres a big fleet out to get them but the ability to employ such forms psychological warfare and meta-gaming are what elevate EVE Online above the wow-level dreck that MMO game space is dominated by.



Ok so then I need 10,000 subscriptions and to afk cloak 1 system at a time (preferably an enemy staging system or other strategically important location) perhaps cashing the node. Get the point? no counter = potential for abuse. Eve needs to move towards a full PvP/Sandbox style and away from this sandbox with the grade 3 teacher watching version of it. Which means every action must have a way to stop it/negate it/deal with it etc... by the Player Base

You have highlighted several concerns with being able to reveal or detect a cloaked ship which show me that 1)there is a serious problem with the existing system and 2) the solution rests with the creation of new mechanics, adjustment of old ones.

A) revamp of the DScanner (a very cool idea, needs to updated badly) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=112964&find=unread this seems to be going in the right direction.

B) creation of 2 or more cloaks, revision on how they actually work and what hulls can use them. Example: 'Spy' T2 Cloak - Covops only. cannot be revealed by Disruptor(Basically the cloak we have now, except cannot use covert cyno). 'Ambusher' T2 Cloak - Recon and above very fast lock time when uncloaking. can be disrupted. can use covert cyno)

C) creation of some kind of cloak disruptor which cannot affect purely information gathering cloakers only those fit for a combat role. That is to say that a cloaker operating on the strategic level, not tactical cannot be revealed by any means. He poses no direct physical threat and thus should not be threatened physically. i.e. can't affect Spy, can affect Ambusher


When in doubt, look at a real-world military. If the enemy can do something and nobody can find any way to counter or deal with it... that's a problem.

edit: and no HTFU is not a reasoned response to a strategic imbalance in a game. Also I am not mad, upset, crying etc. I happen to be a member of a military in RL and so generally have an interest in balancing the amazing shared hallucination that is eve online.
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#108 - 2012-10-26 18:26:55 UTC
Remove AFK | Cloaking

There are 2 distinct parts here:

1) AFK
- Mining
- Ratting
- Hauling
- Market trading

2) Cloaking
- Intel spy
- Cyno drop
- 'Safe' travel
- Bombing
- Terrorizing
- Bounty hunting

Please pick one and make arguments on it separately, then check to make sure your suggestion does not negatively impact any of the other listed areas. If it does, go back to the drawing board and start over. After finding your best answer please post it along with all your back research for peer review.

That is all.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#109 - 2012-10-26 18:33:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
edit: and no HTFU is not a reasoned response to a strategic imbalance in a game. Also I am not mad, upset, crying etc. I happen to be a member of a military in RL and so generally have an interest in balancing the amazing shared hallucination that is eve online.
But it is balanced. The difference is local's intel is guaranteed, whereas the psychological effects from AFKing are not.

Plus, why shouldn't there be psychological warfare in this game? I think it's a great addition.

Let's face it, when they decloak, they are just as killable as you. This really is a none issue and you can take precautions. Sure you may still diaf, but as I said, the only guarantee here is the easy mode local intel.

Want changes to cloaks? Then let's deal with the reason for AFKing first please.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Devon Krah'tor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#110 - 2012-10-26 18:46:11 UTC
Mag's wrote:

Plus, why shouldn't there be psychological warfare in this game? I think it's a great addition.

Let's face it, when they decloak, they are just as killable as you. This really is a none issue and you can take precautions. Sure you may still diaf, but as I said, the only guarantee here is the easy mode local intel.

Want changes to cloaks? Then let's deal with the reason for AFKing first please.



Not to invalidate your perspective, I'd like to get into that shortly. However I have yet to receive a response to the proposal of diversifying cloaking modules based on task and effectiveness, versus one Uber cloak. Would really appreciate some feedback.
Also considering within that suggestion, is the allowance to maintain undiscoverable cloaking as it stands.

but perhaps that is for another thread. Either way. Lets look at the reasonhs for AFKing. I presume you have some ideas, as you brought it up.
Greater.Insight.Skill.Knowledge
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#111 - 2012-10-27 00:48:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
Mag's wrote:

Plus, why shouldn't there be psychological warfare in this game? I think it's a great addition.

Let's face it, when they decloak, they are just as killable as you. This really is a none issue and you can take precautions. Sure you may still diaf, but as I said, the only guarantee here is the easy mode local intel.

Want changes to cloaks? Then let's deal with the reason for AFKing first please.



Not to invalidate your perspective, I'd like to get into that shortly. However I have yet to receive a response to the proposal of diversifying cloaking modules based on task and effectiveness, versus one Uber cloak. Would really appreciate some feedback.
Also considering within that suggestion, is the allowance to maintain undiscoverable cloaking as it stands.

but perhaps that is for another thread. Either way. Lets look at the reasonhs for AFKing. I presume you have some ideas, as you brought it up.

I've mentioned the biggest issue with that idea. It does nothing to solve afk cloaking, just adds unnecessary complexity.

An afk cloaker would just make sure to use the same setup as the active spy, and thus will still be "invincible".

All the idea would do is make Devs work more and make cloaky hunters have a little more risk in an already highly risky, low reward profession (either that or I just suck with bombers Lol).


There simply is no way (still considering betting a PLEX on this) to hinder afk cloakers without making things more difficult for active cloak activities, some of which are already difficult and risky for very little reward (note: while modifying cloaking itself).
There may be a way to remove the silly terror that is afk cloaking, but the answer lies with the other mechanics responsible, not cloaking (cynos, local, etc). Or just growing up and learning the many ways to deal with potential intruders already used by WH corps and a few sov holders.

EDIT: Devon thank you for at least being reasonable with your debate style. I really like the lack of personal attacks and whining. rare thing, but makes these discussions actually enjoyable.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#112 - 2012-10-27 11:29:33 UTC
Devon Krah'tor wrote:
Mag's wrote:

Plus, why shouldn't there be psychological warfare in this game? I think it's a great addition.

Let's face it, when they decloak, they are just as killable as you. This really is a none issue and you can take precautions. Sure you may still diaf, but as I said, the only guarantee here is the easy mode local intel.

Want changes to cloaks? Then let's deal with the reason for AFKing first please.



Not to invalidate your perspective, I'd like to get into that shortly. However I have yet to receive a response to the proposal of diversifying cloaking modules based on task and effectiveness, versus one Uber cloak. Would really appreciate some feedback.
Also considering within that suggestion, is the allowance to maintain undiscoverable cloaking as it stands.

but perhaps that is for another thread. Either way. Lets look at the reasonhs for AFKing. I presume you have some ideas, as you brought it up.
My perspective that psychological warfare is a great addition, could indeed be argued either way.

As far as the different cloaks idea is concerned, I refer once more to my post. Let's sort out the reason for AFKing first, then let's look at cloaks. Even with this diversifying cloaks idea, you end up gaining more intel power on top of the already powerful local intel tool. That surely cannot be seen, as a balanced approach.

That being said, I actually like the status quo and don't wish for any changes. But if you want cloaks to change, then local should be changed to stop it's easy mode intel system.
The fact that you can AFK without a cloak and gain the same psychological effects, means your focus should be on local. If indeed AFKing is your target.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Azrael Dinn
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#113 - 2012-10-29 07:14:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
Michael Loney wrote:
Remove AFK | Cloaking

There are 2 distinct parts here:

1) AFK
- Mining
- Ratting
- Hauling
- Market trading

2) Cloaking
- Intel spy
- Cyno drop
- 'Safe' travel
- Bombing
- Terrorizing
- Bounty hunting

Please pick one and make arguments on it separately, then check to make sure your suggestion does not negatively impact any of the other listed areas. If it does, go back to the drawing board and start over. After finding your best answer please post it along with all your back research for peer review.

That is all.


No, this topic there is only "Remove AFK cloaking". There is just one part here. If we go for all AFK activities we can close the game right now cause you can list manufacturing, reserch, invention, P.I. and almost all other industry based activities to your part 1 and without those there will be no EVE cause you would not have ships to blow up.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#114 - 2012-10-29 09:41:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Michael Loney wrote:
Remove AFK | Cloaking

There are 2 distinct parts here:

1) AFK
- Mining
- Ratting
- Hauling
- Market trading

2) Cloaking
- Intel spy
- Cyno drop
- 'Safe' travel
- Bombing
- Terrorizing
- Bounty hunting

Please pick one and make arguments on it separately, then check to make sure your suggestion does not negatively impact any of the other listed areas. If it does, go back to the drawing board and start over. After finding your best answer please post it along with all your back research for peer review.

That is all.


No, this topic there is only "Remove AFK cloaking". There is just one part here. If we go for all AFK activities we can close the game right now cause you can list manufacturing, reserch, invention, P.I. and almost all other industry based activities to your part 1 and without those there will be no EVE cause you would not have ships to blow up.

The problem is...

If you are attacking this particular "problem" because you have an issue with people being "AFK" then it is only fair to be consistent and work on getting rid of all mechanics that allow for AFKing. After all... it isn't fair that people can "gain an advantage when they are not on the computer."

If you are attacking this on the basis that cloaking itself isn't directly counterable... well... look at the ships themselves. They are actually quite gimped with regards to direct combat and won't stand up in a "fair fight."

If you are against AFK cloaking because you fear cyno drops... that's a different mechanic system separate from cloaking. You can alter it so that normal cynos need to spool up... but what about covert cynos? Taking the point above in account (that cloaking-capable ships are weak in direct combat) how is a person supposed to last long enough to pin down a target (remember, only Stealth Bombers have no targeting delay and they have minimal tanking ability) and live long enough for a cyno to spool up?

Beyond that... if you create mechanics that allow for system scans of cloaking ships you effectively negate any point to cloaks in general (because any anti-cloaking ship that can scan a system becomes standard for any serious 0.0 and wormhole dweller) and if you make it "localized" then you are doing nothing against "AFK cloakers" (who sit in safe spots well out of the way of any celestial object) and instead directly nerf "active cloakers" who are trying to do things in their tinfoil ships.


The most important issue though is how are people supposed to take their enemies by surprise if local tells everyone in the area that a "potential hostile" is in system (keep in mind, AFK cloaking was "born" because of this)?
Every time I have gone to null-sec in a ship, as soon as I appear in local everyone docks up. And they will never come out. Ever. Until I leave or am killed by the thousand man horde.
This makes for VERY few opportunities to engage anyone or do any real damage no matter how well I prepared.
The only counter I have is to devalue local by sitting in the system until they are used to my presence.
Azrael Dinn
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#115 - 2012-10-29 14:36:25 UTC
Well I wouldn't actualy mind about the fact that if I would need to make the ships activly but it's just not happening.

There are too few of us versus the people getting blown up in the ships that we make so if the build mechanics would change in a way that every build would need active game time it would mean that you would run out of ships realy realy fast.

Also I would go for the remove local idea cause it would be a good change to the game actualy. But as long as it's there then removing AFK cloakers is the choice what I would like to have.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#116 - 2012-10-29 15:44:34 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Michael Loney wrote:
Remove AFK | Cloaking

There are 2 distinct parts here:

1) AFK
- Mining
- Ratting
- Hauling
- Market trading

2) Cloaking
- Intel spy
- Cyno drop
- 'Safe' travel
- Bombing
- Terrorizing
- Bounty hunting

Please pick one and make arguments on it separately, then check to make sure your suggestion does not negatively impact any of the other listed areas. If it does, go back to the drawing board and start over. After finding your best answer please post it along with all your back research for peer review.

That is all.


No, this topic there is only "Remove AFK cloaking". There is just one part here. If we go for all AFK activities we can close the game right now cause you can list manufacturing, reserch, invention, P.I. and almost all other industry based activities to your part 1 and without those there will be no EVE cause you would not have ships to blow up.

I think the quoted poster was providing a guideline for those making suggestions to counter afk cloaking.

He was saying, in order to come up with a counter method, you must check each activity listed to make sure you are not impacting them in a negative way.

This has so far been shown to not be possible.

Also... some posts have gone missing from this thread...Sad
Mag's
Azn Empire
#117 - 2012-10-29 17:27:22 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Well I wouldn't actualy mind about the fact that if I would need to make the ships activly but it's just not happening.

There are too few of us versus the people getting blown up in the ships that we make so if the build mechanics would change in a way that every build would need active game time it would mean that you would run out of ships realy realy fast.

Also I would go for the remove local idea cause it would be a good change to the game actualy. But as long as it's there then removing AFK cloakers is the choice what I would like to have.
Well being as local is the reason for AFking, (in the context of psychological warfare) then it's the thing that should be looked at. Without local's instant intel, AFKing would be pointless.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Azrael Dinn
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#118 - 2012-10-30 09:07:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
Mag's wrote:
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Well I wouldn't actualy mind about the fact that if I would need to make the ships activly but it's just not happening.

There are too few of us versus the people getting blown up in the ships that we make so if the build mechanics would change in a way that every build would need active game time it would mean that you would run out of ships realy realy fast.

Also I would go for the remove local idea cause it would be a good change to the game actualy. But as long as it's there then removing AFK cloakers is the choice what I would like to have.
Well being as local is the reason for AFking, (in the context of psychological warfare) then it's the thing that should be looked at. Without local's instant intel, AFKing would be pointless.


So everyone would agree that lets remove local? Twisted

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#119 - 2012-10-30 09:33:05 UTC
There are enough threads on this topic. I suggest you post in those rather than start a new one.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents